On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:53:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > > explain better. > > > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code > > it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and > > we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly > > by choice and it's wrong. In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we > > shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches. > > But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL > choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API? We still only have to revert one patch either way. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
